Performance

I’m not a big one on posting first-party benchmark results, but the high-level overview from Intel was this:

  • At 3.3 GHz, 12900K is +19% better in Single Thread Performance over the 11900K
  • Over the 11900K, the 12900K is +19% better at 1080p High with RTX 3090
  • Over the 11900K, the 12900K gets +84% better fps when concurrently streaming
  • Over the 11900K, the 12900K is +22-100% better in content creation (Adobe)
  • Over the 11900K, the 12900K is +50% faster in BlenderMT at 241W (vs 250W)
  • Over the 11900K, the 12900K performs the same in BlenderMT at only 65W (vs 250W)

All of Intel’s tests were using Windows 11, with DDR5-4400 vs DDR4-3200. Intel did have a small one slide of comparisons against AMD in gaming with an RTX 3090, however they stated they were done without the latest L3 patch fix, and admitted that they would have preferred to show us full results. By the time this article goes live, we may have seen those results at Intel’s event.

This is a reasonable set of data, very focused on the Core i9, but when the reviews come out we’ll be able to see where it sits compared to the other parts, as well as the competition. The only thing that concerns me right now leading up to the launch is the behavior of demoting workloads to E-cores when not in focus when on the Balanced Power Plan (mentioned on the Thread Director page). It won’t be until I get hands-on with the hardware as to whether I see it as an issue or not.

Another factor to mention is DRM. Intel has made statements to this, but there is an issue with Denuvo as it uses part of the CPU configuration to identify systems to stop piracy. Due to the hybrid nature, Denuvo might register starting on a different core (P vs E) as a new system, and eventually lock you out of the game either temporarily or permanently. Out of the top 200 games, around 20 are affected and Intel says it still has a couple more to fix. It’s working with Denuvo for a high-level fix from their side, and with developers to fix from their end as well. Intel says it’s a bit harder with older titles, especially when there’s no development going on, or the IP is far away from its original source. A solution to this would be to only launch those games on specific cores, but look out for more updates as time marches on.

Conclusions

Well, it’s almost here. It looks like Intel will take the ST crown, although MT is a bit of a different story, and might rely explicitly on the software being used or if the difference in performance is worth the price. The use of the hybrid architecture might be an early pain point, and it will be interesting to see if Thread Director remains resilient to the issues. The bump up to Windows 11 is also another potential rock in the stream, and we’re seeing some teething issues from users, although right now users who are looking to early adopt a new CPU are likely more than ready to adopt a new version of Windows at the same time.

The discourse on DDR4 vs DDR5 is one I’ve had for almost a year now. Memory vendors seem ready to start seeding kits to retailers, however the expense over DDR4 is somewhat eyewatering. The general expectation is that DDR5 won’t offer much performance uplift over a good kit of DDR4, or might even be worse. The benefit of DDR5 then at this point is more to start on that DDR5 ladder, where the only way to go is up. This will be Intel’s last DDR4 platform on desktop it seems.

On the processors themselves, the Core i5 and Core i7 parts look very competitive and in line with respective popular AMD processors. Both the Core i5 and Core i7 have extra E-cores, so we’ll see if that comes in handy for extra performance, or they’ll just end up burning power and performance per watt needs re-examining. The Core i9 challenge is probably sided on Intel for single thread, but all the questions will be over proper multi-threaded performance.

Intel 12th Gen Core, Alder Lake
AnandTech Cores
P+E/T
E-Core
Base
E-Core
Turbo
P-Core
Base
P-Core
Turbo
IGP Base
W
Turbo
W
Price
$1ku
i9-12900K 8+8/24 2400 3900 3200 5200 770 125 241 $589
i9-12900KF 8+8/24 2400 3900 3200 5200 - 125 241 $564
i7-12700K 8+4/20 2700 3800 3600 5000 770 125 190 $409
i7-12700KF 8+4/20 2700 3800 3600 5000 - 125 190 $384
i5-12600K 6+4/20 2800 3600 3700 4900 770 125 150 $289
i5-12600KF 6+4/20 2800 3600 3700 4900 - 125 150 $264

After not much CPU news for a while, it’s time to get in gear and find out what Intel has been cooking. Come back on November 4th for our review.

Package Improvements and Overclocking
Comments Locked

395 Comments

View All Comments

  • mode_13h - Saturday, October 30, 2021 - link

    I'm just pointing out that Intel's market segmentation practices essentially rule out inclusion of ECC in a mainstream platform. That could always change, but I've seen no indication that it would.

    What you *want* to happen is a separate matter.
  • Oxford Guy - Sunday, October 31, 2021 - link

    'What you *want* to happen is a separate matter.'

    Glad you've realized that. Now, back to the subject of ECC not being mentioned...
  • mode_13h - Saturday, October 30, 2021 - link

    FWIW, I wish ECC support were more widespread. I always use ECC memory, when it's an option, but it really restricts ones choice of CPU & motherboard.
  • Oxford Guy - Sunday, October 31, 2021 - link

    'I wish ECC support were more widespread.'

    Then your conduct here should reflect that.
  • mode_13h - Sunday, October 31, 2021 - link

    > Then your conduct here should reflect that.

    FFS, dude. *Your* conduct should reflect better internet skills. Your original post indicated what could be genuine uncertainty over the lack of ECC being addressed. I replied to clarify the matter to you and anyone else who might be interested in the subject. And this is the MF thanks I get? Geez, you're welcome but you can keep your snide remarks.

    Sure, there was a note of sarcasm in your post, but it's hard to know just how much might've been sincere. I'm sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt. You should know by now that text isn't an effective medium for implicit sarcasm. Don't act like this is my fault.
  • Oxford Guy - Friday, November 5, 2021 - link

    I can’t be bothered to read your latest defensive rant. Fact is that when you attack someone’s post for advocating for ECC RAM you don’t get to simultaneously claim you’re an ECC RAM advocate.

    Figure out what you actually think prior to posting.
  • mode_13h - Friday, November 5, 2021 - link

    > when you attack someone’s post for advocating for ECC RAM

    Try not to get your ego so tied up in your posts that you can't distinguish a factual counterpoint from attacking your motives.

    I never attacked the value of ECC. I pointed out that Intel doesn't put ECC in their mainstream consumer CPUs. Your post was worded as if you were unaware of this fact. If you are trying to question Intel's priorities, then make it clear.

    > Figure out what you actually think prior to posting.

    I have never changed my position on this matter. Not for 23 years, which is the first time I owned a machine with parity memory.

    And stop shifting blame. Be better.
  • mode_13h - Friday, October 29, 2021 - link

    I don't see why the DDR5 era poses such a challenge in describing DIMM configurations. The difference between DDR4 and DDR5 is that the latter has a pair of channels, rather than a single channel. So, instead of talking about "Dimms Per Channel" (DPC), simply use the phrase "Dimms Per Channel-Pair (DPCP). Problem solved.
  • mode_13h - Friday, October 29, 2021 - link

    "we’ve seen Intel over the years transition from a soldered down heatspreader, to liquid metal, to basic thermal paste (because saving 0.1 cents means a lot across 70m CPUs)"

    First, which CPUs used liquid metal?

    And I simply can't believe the figure of thermal paste saving them only $0.001 per CPU. It seems to me that the delta of soldering the dies would be more than that. Furthermore, that amount over 70 M CPUs is only $70k, which I think is not enough to justify the performance impact. For a long time, Intel said it was competing against itself, which meant that a smaller generational uplift meant fewer upgrades. So, that $70k of savings could easily be overcome by a small boost in sales that could come with an additional % in performance.

    So, is there any credible information that the savings Intel got by using thermal paste was REALLY that small?
  • Samus - Friday, October 29, 2021 - link

    Prescott is BACK BABY! Just look at that pipeline and those power draws!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now